No Arab conquest of Persia

Not true, the Sassanids empire was in the midst of a civil war when the Arabs attacked. Who knows how long it will take to recover when left to its own devices. This could give the Arabs enough time to consolidate their holdings by the time the Persian reappear.

That is exactly what I am addressing, however. If you remove the last war, and the Sassanians don't endure the defeat and its aftermath, things look bright. But they look brighter for the Romans, who aren't going to keel over upon laying eyes on the Arabs.
 
That is exactly what I am addressing, however. If you remove the last war, and the Sassanians don't endure the defeat and its aftermath, things look bright. But they look brighter for the Romans, who aren't going to keel over upon laying eyes on the Arabs.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The TL assumes that the Byzantine Sassasnid war goes the same as out OTL.
 
Persians would have lighter skin for one. The Persians of this TL wouldn't look much like OTL Persians at all
 
I'm pretty sure that Persians are mostly genetically identical to their geographic ancestors, like the Egyptians, Turks, and North Africans are.
 
Persians would have lighter skin for one. The Persians of this TL wouldn't look much like OTL Persians at all

LOL! How do you figure that? Have you looked at the depictions of pre-Islamic Persians and Modern Persians? They are the same people, dude!
 
Tha's a huge assumption, with butterflies like these, we might not even have the democracy we have today.

FYI, unless you've been to Iran, please don't dismiss us as a petty theocracy. No one likes our government, but we're not that bad.

Unless you count executing people for both apostasy (resigning from a religion, in this case Islam) and homosexuality. With all honesty, if I were an Iranian, I'd be utterly ashamed and angry that the Arabs conquered my country, which is why it is the way it is today.
 
Last edited:
Unless you count executing people for both apostasy (resigning from a religion, in this case Islam) and homosexuality. With all honesty, if I were an Iranian, Id be utterly ashamed and angry that the Arabs conquered my country, which is why it is the way it is today.

Many are, but I dont see why, and thats an overly broad statement to make, Iranians still kept their identity and language. Some of Irans greatest work came after the Arab conquest. The conquest that did the most damage, from which we are barely recovering, is of the Mongols; who had no religious agenda (or any agenda, besides death and destructioon).
 
How far could the Arabs gone in the conquest of Rome?

The Arabs had a small window to replicate their success in OTL. It would require the Romans and Persians to be exhausted in war. It also requires Romans/Persians to be led by incompetent commanders compared to the Arabs.

If this goes into a long protracted war, the arabs wont have the same resources as the Romans nor the Persians. Due to limited resources, they need to keep winning each battle until they conquer a good resources base.

Islam spread into South India and SE Asia by almost totally peaceful methods. It did pretty well for itself in SEA becoming the dominant religin of the Malay world and there's still a large Muslim population in S India.

This is under the assumption that they dominate the trade in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

Had the Arabs lost, the Red sea would be dominated by the Coptics- Egyptians, Romans or Ethiopians.

The Indian Ocean would be a toss up between the Coptics and the Persians.

I dont know with what resources the Arab would dominated the trade in ATL when they are limited in Arabia since by OTL trade in South East Asia, the Arabs had so much resources from Spain to Persia.
 
Top